The "strange racism" (age-ism, anti-semitism, red-baiting, homophobia, etc.) of "pragmatists"

[Bonobo]

I read this excellent letter in Daily Kos that I think addresses very well the inverted prejudice that infects our "tent" and is a hindrance to progress.

They call it "pragmatism" but is it perhaps a form of "oppressor identification" or Stockholm Syndrome?

It comes in the form of "I have nothing against [fill in blank "ism" or "ity" here] but I worry that the American people aren't ready for.

This form of "pragmatism" or "concern trolling" is the enemy of Progress and should be fought back against tooth and nail. Progress does not happen without courage.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/08/24/1414910/-Strange-Racism-Sanders-s-Judaism

In light of a sad diary published today by kossack who I deeply admire and respect (therefore I'll refrain from linking to it), I thought it important to say a few words about just how subtle racism, sexism, and homophobia can be). The objectionable nature of the diary arose from suggesting that we need to address the question of Sanders's Jewish ethnicity because it's likely large swaths of the American electorate would never accept a Jewish person as president.

I would like to suggest that this is a subtle form of racism.

This is an example of what I call "inverted or strange racism" (or sexism or homophobia, etc). People think you have to be racist in your heart to be a racist. But there's a way of being racist (or sexist or homophobic) in terms of what you believe is in the mind of others. One says, "I can't support person x because others are racist and they won't support him." Because one chooses their action based on what they believe others believe, the net result becomes support of racist policy. That racism might not be in your heart, but you're still allowing the racist to triumph.

It appears some have trouble understanding this concept and seeing why this phenomenon is so objectionable. Take the following scenario in a male dominated workplace:

Mark believes Chelsea is thoroughly qualified for the job, but knows he works with a bunch of sexist pigs that will never accept a woman in a managerial position. Knowing that it's important to keep the business going, Mark decides to be a pragmatic realist and regretfully passes over Chelsea's application with regret, hoping some day his colleagues will be enlightened enough to consider a woman.
In this scenario Mark congratulates himself for being an enlightened, non-sexist, man but he really shouldn't. He's still allowing sexism to determine his actions, but in the form of what he believes others believe. This is exactly what happens with strange racism, sexism, and homophobia. We congratulate ourselves on being enlightened because we don't believe these noxious things, but nonetheless support racist, sexist, and homophobic policies by claiming others aren't ready for equality. Every time someone asked whether the country was ready for a black, female, or Jewish president they're participating in this form of strange racism and sexism. It's something that needs to stop and certainly something "pragmatic realists" should reflect on in their thought processes.

[Juicy_Bellows]

1. It does need to stop.

Thank you for posting.

[PatrickforO]

2. Great post.

I agree. The fact Sanders is Jewish has nothing whatever to do with anything. The guy's right on the issues and that's what counts with me. And, apparently, millions of others, with numbers growing every day.

[Bonobo]

3. It's also the "socialism thing". People KNOW he is not really a socialists. but they express concern

that others won't get it.

Thus, they spread the ignorance.

[PatrickforO]

10. That's one of the main things the opposition brings up!

A (gasp) socialist (shudder) can't win.

When people hear what Bernie has to say, though, it is different. Plus, for the Millennial generation, socialism isn't really a dirty word like it was for us Boomers, say back in 1990.

[Bonobo]

13. I think it's cowardly too. nt

[PatrickforO]

24. Funny story about this...

Years ago, in the mid-80s, I was in undergraduate school. I took a class about teaching social studies. All fine and dandy, right. Well, the teacher was an aging hippie. One day he came into the class, sat down and we all gave him our attention.

He began the class by saying, "I don't see how any thinking person could ever be anything but a socialist."

Whoa! Pandemonium! The class was arguing, adrenaline was pumping, conservative veins were throbbing, and he just sat back and listened to the debate.

When our time was almost up, he said, "Do you see what I did with you?"

Someone raised her hand, and answered that he had made a provocative statement and then just sat back and let us debate.

"Yes," he said, "I did that. Did you learn anything?"

We all agreed that the debate had been good for our critical thinking skills, because when someone says something you disagree with, arguing back helps you hone your position.

Now, funny thing...I actually agree with the teacher!

[AuntPatsy]

4. k&R loved the scenario

[SonderWoman]

5. I don't see the connection in this hypothetical scenario.

Take the Mark and Chelsea scenario for example, the pragmatic thing to do would be hire the best person for the job, what Mark did would not be an example of pragmatism, quite the opposite. Mark is a sexist, not a pragmatist.

[Bonobo]

6. Right! The point is that it is "pragmatic" in his mind.

It is false pragmatism you could say.

[SonderWoman]

8. Is false pragmatism a rampant problem?

[Bonobo]

9. Let's see...

"I consider myself a Progressive, but I don't think the most Progressive candidate can win because..."

Yes, it is.

[SonderWoman]

11. Who are you quoting?

[Bonobo]

12. It is a generalized representation of the attitudes of I have seen here. nt

[Bonobo]

14. Here is a perfect example.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=576960

[passiveporcupine]

19. I'm not sure it's false pragmatism

Moreover, theories and models are to be judged primarily by their fruits and consequences, not by their origins or their relations to antecedent data or facts. The basic idea is presented metaphorically by James and Dewey, for whom scientific theories are instruments or tools for coping with reality. As Dewey emphasized, the utility of a theory is a matter of its problem-solving power; pragmatic coping must not be equated with what delivers emotional consolation or subjective comfort. What is essential is that theories pay their way in the long run—that they can be relied upon time and again to solve pressing problems and to clear up significant difficulties confronting inquirers. To the extent that a theory functions or “works” practically in this way, it makes sense to keep using it

If avoiding situations that cause problems in the workplace...like not hiring a woman manager (even though she is most qualified) because the other workers can't handle it and it would cause too much disruption in the workplace...then that is "keep using it" because it worked in the past and will continue to work.

this is a very interesting read on what pragmatism means.

http://www.iep.utm.edu/pragmati/#H2

[Bonobo]

21. Thank you. That is a great addition to the conversation. nt

[passiveporcupine]

23. You should check out the link. I've bookmarked it for later

3. Conclusion

For the most part, pragmatists have thought of themselves as reforming the tradition of empiricism—though some have gone further and recommended that tradition’s abolition. As this difference of opinion suggests, pragmatists do not vote en bloc. There is no such thing as the pragmatist party-line: not only have pragmatists taken different views on major issues (for example, truth, realism, skepticism, perception, justification, fallibilism, realism, conceptual schemes, the function of philosophy, etc.), they have also disagreed about what the major issues are. While such diversity may seem commendably in keeping with pragmatism’s professed commitment to pluralism, detractors have urged it only goes to show that pragmatism stands for little or nothing in particular. This gives rise to a question as awkward as it is unavoidable—namely, how useful is the term “pragmatism”? That question is wide open.

[Bonobo]

25. Thanks, I will nt

[Fumesucker]

7. Not the best person if the rest of Mark's experienced team refuses to work with the new hire

Or even worse, the team accepts the new hire on the surface but sets out to sabotage her on the sly.

The best person for the job is the one who fits on the team as it exists, not one who will cause conflict and strife even if it is inadvertent and none of their own fault.

Being a good manager is often a damn tough job and it's usually the people you have to manage who make it tough.

[Jim Lane]

30. You can't look just at the team as it exists, though.

Mark might decide that Chelsea is only a little better than Dave, and hiring Dave won't bring the problems you outline.

But for the next opening, Edith might be only a little bit better than Fred, then Gale is only a little bit better than Harry, etc.

Mark might well decide that he's going to have to deal with this sooner or later and it might as well be now. Hiring Chelsea might give him worse results over the next quarter but better results over the next year (or maybe it would take five years?). He should consider the team as it exists but also how to improve it, such as by educating them about women's capabilities and by weeding out those who prove uneducable.

[passiveporcupine]

15. K&R

Excellent post!

[McCamy Taylor]

16. Follow this logic and anyone who does not support Clinton is sexist.

If you did not vote for Jesse Jackson in the 1988 primary (I did!) you are racist.

And if you are truly pure, you would not settle for anyone less than a triple amputee minority race Lesbian for the Democratic nominee. Because disabled, gay, minority women need all the help they can get.

This OP makes no sense at all. It is a very weak attempt to address Sanders second biggest problem in the general. His first--and much bigger problem--is that he is a self proclaimed Socialist. I wish I could write this word in 38 point letters, because that is how it will appear in the minds of voters in the general.

"The Democratic nominee is what? But isn't that like being a communist? A red? WTF?"

[Bonobo]

18. I can see the OP struck its target.

POTB

Part of the problem.

[passiveporcupine]

20. exactly

When there could be a teaching moment, we see people withdrawing from any kind of change or confrontation.

[Fumesucker]

22. Do it like this...

[font size="10"]Socialist!!1! [/font]

[Prism]

17. Pragmatism meant screaming at gay people for years

They're still at it. Never skipped a beat.

They don't care. It's just another version of Sunday football to them. "Go Blue Team!"

Same people, same slams against "the fringe left".

They're shameless.

[vkkv]

26. I read this, twice, it is B.S. People are far more complicated than this.

Everyone's perspective is different, and even THAT can change DAILY.

And besides, ASKING QUESTIONS to which we might already KNOW the answer never changes the answer.

[Bonobo]

27. OK, thanks for the reply. nt

[cheapdate]

28. The behaviors described are unprincipled and unethical.

But I hate to see the good name of the philosophical movement known as pragmatism unfairly besmirched. Pragmatism, and its unique branch, American pragmatism, is a philosophy that at it's core is a particular approach to the truth. Pragmatism proposes that absolute truth is probably never attainable, and even if it was, we would have no way of determining that we had finally found it. It's an open-ended approach to truth that believes in constant seeking to improve our knowledge.

The behaviors described in the OP might arguably be characterized as 'pragmatic' but they are not pragmatism.

[Bonobo]

29. That's fine because those that hide behind the label "pragmatist" are often not that either. nt

[cheapdate]

31. It's something of an unfortunate accident

that the common meaning of 'pragmatic' and the association of 'pragmatic' with 'a pragmatist' has only the most marginal connection with 'pragmatism' as a distinct school of philosophy. The OP is correct that shitty, unprincipled actions are commonly justified as 'pragmatic'. But, I'd like to say again, that might be 'pragmatic' but it isn't pragmatism.

The confusion has to do with one element of pragmatism that asks, what is a legitimate question for serious inquiry? Pragmatism proposes that in considering what is a legitimate question for serious inquiry, we should ask ourselves whether the question is of consequence. That is, if the answer to the question has no practical consequences, then it's not a fitting subject of debate. For example, philosophers in the past have spent a great amount of time debating the question of transcendence (is there separation between the observer and the observed?) Pragmatists propose that the answer makes no real difference.

So, in this way, pragmatism as a philosophy has become intertwined in popular understanding as nothing but a kind of unprincipled ethic that values nothing but results, which it's not.

I'm a pragmatist, philosophically speaking, to my very core.

[Bonobo]

32. Cheapdate, this has turned into a fascinating and highly informative OP!

I am so glad this came up! Thanks for the free lesson!!!

[ms liberty]

33. Great thread. K&R...n/t

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

34. I honestly didn't think the country would vote in a black guy for President.

That didn't stop me from voting for him, donating to him, pounding the pavement door to door for him. But I didn't really expect it to happen until it suddenly did. I didn't think America was 'ready for it'. Now, I see, going further into your OP that you're actually linking the thoughts to actions, so I guess I don't fall under that 'weird racism', but my words to folks would be simply never avoid doing something good simply because you don't think it will work.

Always do what's right, whether or not you think it's going to succeed. It doesn't matter whether I think Bernie will win or fail, I'll vote for him because I think it's the right thing to do.

[Bonobo]

35. Same here and very well said.

We need to do the right thing. That's all.

[DanTex]

36. Huh. So not throwing the election to the GOP by nominating a socialist is now akin to racism.

This stuff keeps getting weirder.

[Bonobo]

37. Read the example, Dan.

Seems like you're having trouble getting past the toddler stage of political discussions today.

[DanTex]

38. Ooh a personal attack.

Yeah, I read the example. Not relevant here. This is a presidential campaign, and if we nominate a socialist, we lose. I get that you would like Bernie's political views to be off limits, but this is after all a political campaign.